|
Post by turbonium on Jul 7, 2005 19:18:11 GMT -4
Hi Jay, thx for the work and time you took in answering specific details about the report. But I can't really take your conclusions as definitive. The problem is that you are expecting these witnesses to come on TV grasping a remnant of a bomb or something in order to take them as credible. Or that they need to have a PhD in a field relating to explosives to be qualified to know a bomb went off. That would be like saying a soldier is mistaken for saying a mine blew up his leg because he didn't really see a mine detonate, and besides which he isn't qualified professionally to make that determination.
When you have as many first hand witness reports saying the same thing - for instance the firefighter on video even demonstrating "boom, boom, boom, all the way down the building", you cannot just write it off as hearsay or speculation. You can't seriously expect any more than what is on the record regarding explosives.
Just for argument's sake,, take as a given that there WERE known to be explosives in the towers. How would you now go about and prove that there were, any more than you can in the actual 9/11 case through first hand testimony?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 7, 2005 19:23:47 GMT -4
On a quickside note... How many here say Oswald was the lone JFK assassin? Just curious..... Side note or not , that is irellevant to this discussion. Stating that there are other grand conspiracies that have been perpetrated in the pasteven IF they could be proven) simply does not have any bearing whatsoever on this event, 9/11. None of the people involved are the same, none of the politics are the same and the world is not the same. Copping out, jaydees!! Why not answer? A quick yes or no takes far less time than what you wrote here....... and there's been multiple "side talks" on this and most other forums, so what's the big deal? Guess I'll have to start a new topic.........
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 7, 2005 21:12:28 GMT -4
When you have as many first hand witness reports saying the same thing - for instance the firefighter on video even demonstrating "boom, boom, boom, all the way down the building", you cannot just write it off as hearsay or speculation. You can't seriously expect any more than what is on the record regarding explosives. Considering there were thousands of witnesses to the collapses, the number who claims to have heard bombs going off is relatively small. And all any of them can really say for sure is that they heard noises that sounded like a bombs. This is hardly proof of explosive devices. It is far more likely these people are misinterpreting the sounds that would normally be expected from a large structure in failure. Since there is no other evidence to corroborate these peoples testimony, and since none actual saw the alleged explosive devices, it is very easy to dismiss their claims as mistaken interpretation. Just for argument's sake,, take as a given that there WERE known to be explosives in the towers. How would you now go about and prove that there were, any more than you can in the actual 9/11 case through first hand testimony? You obtain testimony from the thousands of people who witnessed the explosives being installed. Because it the explosives existed, there would be the witnesses. There is no way this work could have been done clandestinely, either during construction or afterward.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 7, 2005 22:18:50 GMT -4
The removal was illegal at minimum. And combined with the inexcusable speed and top priority it took makes it very much look suspicious. There were no valid reasons given for this - and past investigations by FEMA and other groups NOT being conducted in this way, only serves to increase the likelihood of intentional destruction of evidence.
And it's public knowledge the puny budget allocated to 9/11, and the many intentional refusals, limitations and delays involved in ANY investigation. All the tactics employed also add more substance to the accusations of a cover-up..
The 9/11 investigation was originally given a budget of $3-million, later increased to $12-million. Some reports say the budget is now $14-million.
Monica and Bill was much higher priority ;D February 1, 1999 WASHINGTON (February 1) -- Expenditures by Independent Counsel Ken Starr's office have officially surpassed the $40 million mark, according to new Justice Department figures.
The Space Shuttle disaster was given its due investigation... When the shuttle Columbia disintegrated during its descent in February 2003, $50-million was budgeted for an investigation, which began about an hour and a half after the disaster. Another $305-million was spent by FEMA searching for shuttle debris.
The investigation into the shuttle accident began publicly releasing its findings within several weeks, and concluded its work with an exhaustive report about six months later.
President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, over a year after the event, and only through public pressure was an investigation initiated. LOL - Henry Kissinger will lead it! Oops, sorry, Hank, too many skeletons in your closet - even Joe Public knows you have the morals and integrity of a Mafioso Hit Man!!
9/11 is unlikely to ever be close to 100% solved . Do we really need to look very hard for any reasons why that might be?
9/11..... Who benefitted? One specific example - Who made millions on the stock exchanges by having prior knowledge of the events to come on 9/11? Who continually hindered and sabotaged the investigation? Who has no evidence that proves Bin Laden was behind it, but claims it as true beyond any doubt?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 7, 2005 23:15:50 GMT -4
[Who benefitted? One specific example - Who made millions on the stock exchanges by having prior knowledge of the events to come on 9/11? Why don’t you tell us? And give us your evidence as well.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 7, 2005 23:16:00 GMT -4
Witnesses to the installations would have to be authorized personnel on-site. The number of personnel would not need to be in the thousands or even hundreds. A dedicated team of less than one hundred could complete this task over the course of the towers construction. These employees could also have signed non-disclosure agreements with very damaging penalties due to any violations. I've signed several non-disclosure agreements over 20 years in my field (R&D, OEM Medical Devices), as I'm sure many Engineers here can concur have done the same (partiicularly if intellectual property is involved). The penalties I would face just for minor violations are capable of destroying my career and putting me in financial ruin......
I have personal knowledge of a company related to my industry who knowingly distributed medical devices which were proven to cause human fatalities. But the employees never blew the whistle on management - they had all signed NDA's which had specific clauses prohibiting any discussion related to company property - ie: all information regarding test data and procedures. So deaths continued to take place, and only an independent inquest led to a full investigation that halted production and recalled already released product , and criminal convictions for those responsible. There were also flagrant violations of FDA regulations, leading to class action lawsuits and......well, you get the picture. This company had several hundred employees, of which about 50% or higher knew what was going on. That is just one example from my own personal experience - I could tell you others but many are too touchy to discuss. Believe me, it's definitely possible a similar situation exists with the towers.
Perhaps because of my first-hand experience with small to mid- sized conspiracies, I'm not surprised to see or accept the possibility of large scale conspiracies occurring over the past few decades.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 7, 2005 23:19:04 GMT -4
Witnesses to the installations would have to be authorized personnel on-site. The number of personnel would not need to be in the thousands or even hundreds. A dedicated team of less than one hundred could complete this task over the course of the towers construction. These employees could also have signed non-disclosure agreements with very damaging penalties due to any violations. Oh, please.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 7, 2005 23:42:17 GMT -4
These employees could also have signed non-disclosure agreements with very damaging penalties due to any violations. That has to be one of the most ridiculous things you've said so far. No court would uphold a contract that required the person who signed it to be an accomplice to mass murder. And when the judge asked them why they didn't blow the whistle did the fact that they had signed an NDA protect them from prosecution? Did the judge say "oh, you signed an NDA... okay then, you were absolutely right not to come forward"? I seriously doubt it. The purpose of an NDA is to prevent employees from leaking information to competitors, customers, or the media, it isn't meant to prevent employees from discussing crimes commited by the company with the authorities.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 8, 2005 0:04:50 GMT -4
[Who benefitted? One specific example - Who made millions on the stock exchanges by having prior knowledge of the events to come on 9/11? Why don’t you tell us? And give us your evidence as well. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be evasive. I figured most of you were aware of the case. Exec. CIA Director Buzzy Krongard was head of banking firm AB Brown, which was found to have purchased an extremely high number of "put options" in United and American Airlines just prior to 9/11. Unlike a standard stock purchase, these are stocks "bought" (bet on) in hopes that they will drop in value so a profit is made from the decreased share value. There are multiple connections between Krongard and other CIA executives with Promis software (which monitors real time stock transactions), and are personally connected to multinational banking firms, such as AB Brown. www.entrefilets.com/trading_cia.htm The SEC review came out with this conclusion in 2004... ''In the course of that review, we did not develop any evidence suggesting that anyone who had advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks traded on the basis of that information.'' Quite an amusing statement considering the increase in normal volume for those specific shares made Martha Stewart's violations look like peanuts by comparison. From the link below, I've posted relevant details of the discrepancies in trade volumes and profits earned.... "]http://www.americanfreepress.net/Conspiracy/28_Mounting_Evidence_of_Larger%20.htm] Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options… Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these “insiders” would have profited by almost $5 million. - On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;… Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent “insiders,” they would represent a gain of about $4 million. - The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.- No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday. - Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million. Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day . When trading resumed, Merrill’s shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by “insiders,” their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
- European regulators are examining trades in Germany’s Munich Re, Switzerland’s Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a “double whammy” for them.] On September 29, 2001 – in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media – the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.
“The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors – whose identities and nationalities have not been made public – had advance knowledge of the strikes.” They don’t dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.
“… October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called “put” options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp.”
“…The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options…” This was the operation managed by Krongard until as recently as 1998.
As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks. www.americanfreepress.net/Conspiracy/28_Mounting_Evidence_of_Larger%20.htmFormer German Minister of Technology Andreas von Bulow, in an interview published in the Jan. 13 issue of Tagesspiegel, a Berlin publication, estimated $15 billion in insider trading profits.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 8, 2005 0:09:23 GMT -4
Witnesses to the installations would have to be authorized personnel on-site. The number of personnel would not need to be in the thousands or even hundreds. A dedicated team of less than one hundred could complete this task over the course of the towers construction. These employees could also have signed non-disclosure agreements with very damaging penalties due to any violations. Oh, please. How do you know? What about violations of disclosure in other fields? They do exist, so just to say "oh, please" is not showing me they couldn't exist. Or some variation of same.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 8, 2005 2:03:05 GMT -4
These employees could also have signed non-disclosure agreements with very damaging penalties due to any violations. That has to be one of the most ridiculous things you've said so far. No court would uphold a contract that required the person who signed it to be an accomplice to mass murder. And when the judge asked them why they didn't blow the whistle did the fact that they had signed an NDA protect them from prosecution? Did the judge say "oh, you signed an NDA... okay then, you were absolutely right not to come forward"? I seriously doubt it. The purpose of an NDA is to prevent employees from leaking information to competitors, customers, or the media, it isn't meant to prevent employees from discussing crimes commited by the company with the authorities. No employees of the company I was discussing ever came forward about the deaths that were occurring as a result of the defective product. They most certainly had signed NDA's that related to disclosure of information. But they also had job security on the other side, with obscenely huge bonuses for increased sales as added incentive to remain silent. A "whistle-blower", outside of the obvious loss of employment, would have been required to show conclusive evidence that the product was designed as defective, that QC was intentionally compromised to pass products that had actually failed in testing, and that it was specifically "Joe Blow" and "John Public" as the managers who were directly responsible for ordering employees to carry out these violations. At which point "Joe Blow" and "John Public" would point to the VP of Operations as the man who told them to do it. Then the VP would point to the President.......... Or they would all deny it in the absence of concrete proof. The "whistle-blower" would then be hung out to dry for disclosing company secrets. Without an NDA, they could still countersue the employee, but with the NDA, they have a signed agreement that has been violated, which may result in irreparable damage to the company name, reputation, and financial state. The people I knew there told me they were scared to do anything about it. Their immediate managers had told them to do things as they had been instructed. Those managers were also afraid and unsure what to do, because their managers also just told them to not worry about it . It was "passing the buck" and "just do your job" all down the line. Non-Disclosure Agreement, as applicable, “confidential information” includes, but is not limited to, non-public information that might be of use to competitors of the Company, or harmful to the Company or its customers if disclosed."Healthcare organisations and the healthcare professions have traditionally dealt with such problems informally and secretively, and it seems likely that there are many more instances of such disasters which never attract widespread public and media attention and are never subject to a formal inquiry or investigation. In some countries the process of medical negligence litigation reinforces this tendency to concealment through the use of non-disclosure agreements and out of court settlements, and market pressures among competing healthcare providers mean there are strong disincentives to honesty and openness. The responsibility for identifying major organisational failures and initiating an investigation is often fragmented between professional regulators, healthcare providers, and government authorities. A better and clearer definition of the circumstances or instances which should trigger a formal investigation of organisational failure is needed, alongside more robust and coherent systems for initiating and managing such investigations or inquiries. qhc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/12/2/81seclists.org/lists/isn/2005/Mar/0073.htmlMany med-tech industry observers know next to nothing about the company, despite its powerful board and 12 years of operations. Even officials at some of the other local drug delivery businesses hadn't heard of it. Strict non-disclosure agreements for staff and board members may be one reason.CHEMICAL INDUSTRY CONTINUES TO TRY HIDING THE FACTS FROM THE PUBLIC IN THEIR CRITIQUE OF BILL MOYERS' TRADE SECRETS EXPOSE The American Chemistry Council, in its ongoing effort to discredit the PBS broadcast TRADE SECRETS: A Moyers Report, issued a press release dated March 26, 2001 that purports to rebut the historical record presented in the investigative report by claiming that the chemical industry played an activist role in addressing the health risks of these chemicals. In fact, the American Chemistry Council response ignores the contrary information in the industry's own documents which are at the heart of the PBS broadcast, and which are posted on the PBS.org/tradesecrets web site. LIVER CANCER AND VINYL CHLORIDE: What the ACC says: The ACC claims that "Industry played a major role in discovering angiosarcoma and acted swiftly to make its workplace safe." They claim this because, after four men who had worked with vinyl chloride died of liver cancer, BF Goodrich made the news public (early 1974)
What the ACC doesn't tell you: The documents show that the industry knew long before those deaths that there could be a link. * Representatives of American industry traveled to Bologna to examine Dr. Cesare Maltoni's work - work which had uncovered angiosarcoma in laboratory rats exposed to vinyl chloride. Those representatives reported back to their headquarters that the work was "of excellent quality" and, "the results on rats are probably undeniable." (February 13, 1973) * The American companies signed non-disclosure agreements with the European industry sponsoring Maltoni's work (October 19, 1972; October 30, 1972) and pledged "to hold such information strictly in confidence within our company unless and until formally notified specific consent to its release has been granted by the European sponsors." And for much the same reason, HMOs also go out of their way to keep hidden as "trade secrets" the precise terms of their employment contracts with their HCPs. Many of these contracts contain gagging clauses, capitation arrangements and economic credentialling agreements that permanently alter the traditional doctor-patient relationship by transforming it into a less collaborative, less private and more adversarial three-party relationship. By their very nature, they set the stage for corporate medical malpractice.The lawyer for Rob's family apparently had no one to testify about the corporate culture of "bottom line medicine" practiced at Rob's HMO at the time of his death. But physicians at other HMOs have recently begun to reveal publicly the closely guarded inner workings of some organizations--despite the retribution that may follow from ignoring contractually binding vows of silence.
In December, two Boston doctors working for a huge nation-wide HMO published the gagging clause included in their employ-ment contracts with the managed care organization. It read:
`Physician shall agree not to take any action or make any communication which undermines the confidence of enrollees, potential enrollees, their employers, their unions, or the public in [the HMO] or the quality of [the HMOs] coverage' and `Physician shall keep the proprietary information [payment rates, utilization review procedures,etc] and this Agreement strictly confidential.
Such non-disclosure agreements are particularly egregious in the field of mental health medicine because they create conflicts of interest between the doctor's ethical responsibilities to his psychologically vulnerable patients and his contractual obliga-tion to his employer. If each of Rob's HCPs was an employee of his HMO who had signed a gagging contract like this one, each would have tacitly agreed not to tell Rob that the level of care the HMO was providing was suboptimal, if not substandard, for his specific psychiatric condition.www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=269My point is that the NDA is ONE method that CAN be used to create a culture of secrecy and provide a means to unethical behavior within the corporate "shell". It does not mean this is what was done in the construction of the WTC, but it demonstrates that a company CAN keep many dirty little secrets from public view - even murder. Don't say it's ridiculous when you haven't been through it personally. Because you don't know that it can and does happen.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 8, 2005 9:48:54 GMT -4
Witnesses to the installations would have to be authorized personnel on-site. The number of personnel would not need to be in the thousands or even hundreds. A dedicated team of less than one hundred could complete this task over the course of the towers construction. Oh great! Are we now back to saying the explosives were installed at the time of construction? Have you ever worked on construction jobsite and witnessed the activities on a daily basis? Have you ever managed, planned, scheduled, and coordinated a construction project? I have, and I'm telling you this proposition is ridiculous. Firstly, all the management staff and building inspectors would certainly know what was happening because it is their job to know. Secondly, these alleged installers would be seen coming and going and their work would be witnessed by hundreds following installation. Demolition charges are installed directly against the structural members – they are designed to cut through the members in strategic locations to promote building collapse. This installation would have to take place while the bare steel is still exposed to view. There would be hundreds of people passing through the work area following the alleged installation. Crew after crew would move into and out of the area as subsequent work is performed. Thirdly, it is simply preposterous to assert a building would be built with demolition charges pre-installed. I can’t begin to imagine the number of building codes this would violate. Fourthly, you imply this work was done in secret, which would suggest it was not a normal practice but was performed with some nefarious intent in mind. LOL! Thirty years and five administrations before this evil plan was put into effect! Please give me a break. Now let’s discuss the possibility of installing the explosive charges after building construction in the months (or years) leading up to the 9/11 attacks. As I’ve said, demolition charges are installed directly against the structure members. This means the steel members would have to be exposed by removing walls, ceilings, etc. And all this in buildings occupied on a daily basis by ten of thousands of tenets and visitors. Clearly you can see that this would be an extremely invasive procedure that could not possibly take place unnoticed. Even if the work was done during off hours and repairs made to cover up the activities, people would still notice unexplained changes, such as freshly painted walls popping up out of nowhere. And even during off hours the buildings would still be occupied by security and cleaning personnel. Heck, a handful of burglars couldn’t break into Democratic national headquarters without being observed; do you really think demolitions crews could secretly move through these buildings without detection? And how do you suppose demolition charges were installed on the outside perimeter columns in full view of all of Manhattan? And what about the miles of detonator cord that would have to been run throughout the buildings? Even if it were possible to perform this work undetected, and I’m certain it could not, the painstaking efforts it would take to cover ones tracks would have caused the work to progress at a snail's pace. There is no way it could have been done in the eight months George Bush was in office prior to 9/11/01. The effort would surely take years. (edit spelling/grammar)
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 8, 2005 10:28:47 GMT -4
Turbo, First of all put options are not shares in anything and do not represent ownership of any asset other than the option, they are contracts between counter parties that rely on the credit of the counter parties to pay off. They do not trade on stock exchanges. Secondly, and rather nitpicking, is that you cannot own share in or trade options on United Airlines, because it is a wholly owned subsidiary of anther company, specifically UAL Corp. The latter company is publicly traded under the ticker UAL. There was indeed for foreknowledge of the attacks by people with enough financial understanding to know to use put options. Whether or not the alleged contract trading took place, your guilt by association tactic to slander people, is somewhat less than persuasive. Your source, The American Free Press is a conspiracy mongering organization, not legitimate source of information. From their About Us web page. To consolidate their influence, the Masters of the Media and their international corporate allies reward obedient journalists with membership in the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Com mission where they rub shoulders with others in the international policy-making networks. A handful get promoted to the higher ranks of the secret Bilderberg Group. One can’t really argue with these folks because of the unshakable belief that there is a hidden conspiracy behind nearly everything. It’s like reasoning a four year old out of the existence of Santa Clause on Christmas Eve. They believe it because they think that if they don’t believe then they won’t get any presents.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 8, 2005 10:31:31 GMT -4
But I can't really take your conclusions as definitive.
I didn't draw any conclusions. I merely pointed out that these witnesses offered testimony that was a mixture of observation and interpretation, as all eyewitness testimony is. Part of my training includes accident investigation, which involves the taking and evaluation of eyewitness testimony. Your material was put together by people who have no training or experience in actual investigation. Hence they make elementary mistakes, such as taking those interpretations as face value and infallible under color of eyewitness.
That testimony was being put forward as evidence of intentional explosives simply because some of the witnesses chose to use language that suggested that. We know from other elements of their testimony that you provided, that they really didn't make observations whose only explanation was a bomb. That was the first explanation that came to their minds, but that doesn't make it the correct interpretation.
The problem is that you are expecting these witnesses to come on TV grasping a remnant of a bomb or something in order to take them as credible.
Yes, and that's no problem.
In order for their bomb interpretation to be credible they must have observations that can only be explained by a bomb. Puffs of smoke and dust are not clear evidence of a bomb. Loud noises and concussions are not clear evidence of a bomb. These people were in or near massive structures that were in the process of structural failure. Every one of their observations can also be explained by that alone.
Their observations have credibility. Their interpretations do not.
Or that they need to have a PhD in a field relating to explosives to be qualified to know a bomb went off.
No. They simply need to have made observations that conclusively support their interpretation. If someone heard a loud noise, then he heard a loud noise. He didn't hear a "bomb".
The only time qualifications really came into question was when you brough up your German author who interpreted the photographic evidence as conclusive proof of explosives. If this gentleman has no expertise to qualify that interpretation then we have no obligation to regard it. Even so, his evidence has been interpreted variously by other qualified experts, so his claim is hardly as conclusive as he makes it out to be.
That would be like saying a soldier is mistaken for saying a mine blew up his leg because he didn't really see a mine detonate,
Apples and oranges. Spontaneous explosions do not simply occur for no reason in the middle of nowhere, so there would be ample cause in that case for the soldier to suspect a mine or similar munition, and people evaluating his testimony afterward to conclude that his explanation is the most likely. Land mines have a pecular nature that can prove their presence simply by their effects.
Loud noises, concussions, and puffs of dust do spontaneously occur in large structures in the process of failure, nor are they unique as effects from some singular cause. Therefore people who observe these things in that situation and conclude that they are really bombs must provide additional determinative testimony to support that interpretation.
Subway trains and city buses don't spontaneously explode in high-order detonations. The effects alone let us know that the London bombings were the result of intentionally placed explosives. Buildings in the process of falling down naturally make the kinds of noises and other effects heard by our witnesses. Therefore we must have additional information in order to conclude there were bombs in addition. We cannot conclusively identify cause simply from effect in that case.
...and besides which he isn't qualified professionally to make that determination.
I would consider a soldier professionally qualified to identify a land mine by its effects.
When you have as many first hand witness reports saying the same thing...
I only questioned the consistency of the reports on the occasions where the reports differed from what was observed more objectively by cameras. In general I agree the reports are consistent.
Consistency of observation is not proof of interpretation. You had a lot of people who heard a lot of noises, felt a lot of concussions, and saw puffs of material. I am not questioning their observation. I am questioning their explanations for those observations.
...for instance the firefighter on video even demonstrating "boom, boom, boom, all the way down the building",
But his was relatively unique testimony. He was one of only two witnesses I recall testifying to a rapid succession of noises.
you cannot just write it off as hearsay or speculation.
I dismissed as hearsay only that testimony which patently was hearsay. You have one guy testifying to what other people heard and what their motives were. That's exactly hearsay.
And there's no problem pointing to these witnesses' interpretation as speculation. It is; and it is even admitted as speculation in a few cases.
You can't seriously expect any more than what is on the record regarding explosives.
But I must, if I'm to draw your conclusion. You have posed a conclusion that cannot be supported strictly or principally by eyewitness testimony.
You don't get to draw your conclusion just because it's unreasonable to expect more information. If the information is not there to support your conclusion, you may not draw it. That is a major tenet of investigation.
Just for argument's sake,, take as a given that there WERE known to be explosives in the towers. How would you now go about and prove that there were...
If I knew it, I wouldn't need to investigate it. You investigate only those things you don't know. But I think I understand what you mean to ask.
...any more than you can in the actual 9/11 case through first hand testimony?
In investigation, eyewitness testimony is typically regarded as the least reliable of all the kinds of information, precisely for the reasons I outlined above and previously. Eyewitness testimony is frequently inconsistent. As Bob pointed out, there were thousands of witnesses to the WTC collapse, and only a few of them spoke of explosives. They spoke consistently of them, I grant you, but consistency of interpretation is not proof of the interpretation.
And as I've belabored, eyewitness testimony is rife with unwarranted intepretation. It is not the fault of the witness; it is human nature to attempt to interpret, and to describe by means of comparison. It is human nature to fill in forgotten or foggy details. It is human nature to change one's recollection of the facts in order to fit it to a coherent "story" in one's mind. All these factors have been studied extensively and are routinely applied in real investigations. I suggest, for example, Elizabeth Loftus' Eyewitness Testimony, which was the text for my training.
Real investigations don't consider eyewitness testimony the pinnacle of proof. Objective "circumstantial" evidence is much more reliable. That's the difference between real investigation and your authors simply playing detective.
The best evidence of explosives is circumstantial: chemical residues, device fragments, debris dispersal patterns, and fracture patterns. You could not hide the chemical residues. It may be unreasonable to expect to find device fragments in such a large pile of debris. All the materials I've seen from the WTC show clear signs of standard structural failure patterns: buckling, tearing, compression, etc. I haven't seen any materials that show the particular kinds of shearing that occur when explosives are used to fail a structure.
You seem to be saying, "But all I have is the eyewitness testimony, what more do you reasonably want?" My answer is: too bad. You don't have enough evidence to prove a case for explosives. That's just how investigation works. What you're doing falls under the fallacy of begging the question.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 8, 2005 10:47:58 GMT -4
Witnesses to the installations would have to be authorized personnel on-site. The number of personnel would not need to be in the thousands or even hundreds.
How many major construction sites have you been on? Please give a number.
A dedicated team of less than one hundred could complete this task over the course of the towers construction.
And how would they keep their work from being discovered by others? You have to place demolition charges on the structural members. Once that's done, how you do keep the subsequent workers from seeing it and having to deal with it? The actual construction would then fail to match the drawings, and that will foul people up. The guy, for example, who brings in the prefabbed floor trusses and now can't put them where they need to go because a big bomb is in the way isn't going to just shrug his shoulders. He's going to raise a big stink about it because he's under contract and under deadline, and someone just fouled up his job.
The union steel workers who come in to finish the steel buildout are going to raise a big stink about stuff applied to their work that wasn't done or authorized by them.
These employees could also have signed non-disclosure agreements with very damaging penalties due to any violations.
Yes, NDAs are routine, and are not nearly as iron-clad as you make them out to be. My company has strict NDAs in place, but at the same time puts pressure on other people to violate their NDAs in our favor. Most of my company's strategic market intelligence comes from people who have spoken "off the record" in violation of NDA.
Whistle-blowers don't necessarily make good examples. A whistle-blower is exempt by law from NDA penalties if his testimony regards unlawful behavior on the part of the company. An NDA has no power to bind an employee to keep unlawful activity a secret. Whistle-blowers do face ostracization from the industry, but that has nothing to do with NDAs. It has to do with the tacet, unwritten code of behavior that prevents employees from airing the company's dirty laundry in public.
It really is ludicrous to suppose that explosives were installed in the WTC during its construction.
|
|